Bindi

I like what you are saying about sexual love, emotive love and aesthetic love being associated with the central channel where it intersects with the dantians, though I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘aesthetic’ love exactly. I think there is some sort of subtle ‘seed’ that has to travel from the LDT up to the MDT and then the UDT that in a sense has to be fully realised and transformed in each of these centres, and this ever broadening of ‘love’ is a fundamental part of the journey. edit to add: Christianity has ‘Agape’ as the highest love, “the love that is of and from God, whose very nature is love itself…it is His nature to love and He must be true to His nature.”

"Buddha nature" is often described in terms of three qualities: boundless wisdom, infinite capability, and immeasurable loving-kindness and compassion. If this is true, and Mind is equivalent to this, then I agree that it means much more than that which thinks. Since I’m a hopeless case I’d break up the above mentioned three qualities into the fully realised potential of pingala, Ida and Sushumna respectively.

Removing a single proton from the nucleus of a mercury atom transforms it into gold, thus the ability to manipulate atoms at a quantum level would be all that is needed for external alchemy to become a reality. Not a car to a chair, but it would be an interesting demonstration of some sort of quantum ability.

Compare the above to this: Bhagawan Sri Ramana Maharshi (B) taught that the heart, not the head, is the true seat of Consciousness; but by this he did not mean the physical organ at the left side of the chest but the heart at the right, and by 'consciousness' he did not mean thought but pure awareness or sense of being. He had found this from his own experience to be the centre of spiritual awareness and then found his experience confirmed in some ancient texts.When his devotees were instructed to concentrate on the heart, it was this spiritual heart on the right that was referred to; and they also found it the centre of an actual, almost physical vibration of awareness. However, he would also speak of the Heart as equivalent to the Self and remind them that in truth it is not in the body at all, but is spaceless. https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/sri-ramana-maharshi-on-heart Ramana also refers to awareness, but it’s centre is within the body, the ‘spiritual heart’ as opposed to the head, which can be felt as an almost physical vibration. He goes on to say it is spaceeless, though it’s hard to square that with ‘almost physical vibration’ and an exact location. Maybe nonduality 😱 But then I just now come across this from Wikipedia: Dzogchen texts also describe how rigpa is connected to the energy body. Dzogchen tantras explain that rigpa can be located in the center of the human body, in the heart centre. The Realms and Transformations of Sound Tantra states: "The jewel present within the heart in the center of one’s body is great pristine consciousness."[21] Furthermore, the Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra states: I have the idea that what is important is centred within us, and that it is important to establish it first within as the source, before identifying with everything ‘out there’ and maybe missing what’s ‘in here’.

When I read something from the nondual traditions for example dzogchen. Below is an explanation of ‘mind-itself’, I understand it’s not mundane mind, but it still seems mind based if the word gnosis or even awareness can be applied to it. Dzogchen theory focuses above all on mind-itself, which is seen as a primordially pure, empty, and luminous gnosis (yeshe) or awareness (rigpa), which must be distinguished from unenlightened “ordinary” mind (sem). Awareness is not only the true nature of each individual sentient being but the very source and substance—in Yogacara terms, the foundation (alaya)—of the cosmos itself. Rigpa is conventionally divisible into essence, nature, and compassionate energy, and includes within it all of samsara and nirvana. Beginninglessly pure mind-itself is captured symbolically in the figure of the primordial buddha Samantabhadra (luminosity) and his consort, Samantabhadri (emptiness). https://www.lionsroar.com/empty-pure-luminous-mind-in-dzogchen-and-mahamudra/

@Apech, you suggested earlier that "mind" equals mind plus spirit, but it still seems to be limited to specifically 'mental consciousness' when I read it in a text.

From what I can gather things are not reliable and constant on the quantum level but when it comes to visible things they are. If quantum reality can be manipulated, maybe a car can become a chair.

If sound is vibrations, then the falling tree certainly does make a sound, because it produces vibrations in the air. Even if there’s no person or other animal around to hear the sound, a recorder with a microphone could certainly record those vibrations—as sound. Another definition is that sound is the sensation we experience when our ears detect those vibrations and send information about those vibrations to the brain. In other words, by this second definition, sound is what we hear, i.e., the perception in our brains. So if sound is what we hear, and no one is around to hear the tree fall, then it doesn’t make a sound! That’s opposite to the answer we had earlier. Which answer is correct? Here’s how to know: When someone asks you, “If a tree falls in a forest, and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound,” first ask, What do you mean by sound? Define sound! Once you hear the definition they’re using, you’ll know the answer. If they say that sound is vibrations in the air, then the answer is yes! If they say that sound is only what a person hears, then the answer is no. https://www.nsta.org/q-if-tree-falls-forest-and-theres-no-one-around-hear-it-does-it-make-sound

In a sense the linked article proves what I was saying earlier to manitou, one can find just about anything to support their view, doesn’t mean it’s right. And you are drawn to those papers and wisdom traditions that confirm your own view/experience. So you are trusting your experience and it’s confirmation to be the truth. Statistically speaking, what you believe to be true is more likely to be one part of the elephant.

The linked article refers to reality as “objective physical realism”. You don’t doubt that there is an objective physical reality?

New experiment demonstrates that reality might actually be real Forget theoretical physics, let's talk about experimental reality April 19, 2022 - 9:12 pm A team of scientists recently conducted an exciting quantum physics experiment allowing them to demonstrate that reality might actually be real. https://thenextweb.com/news/new-experiment-demonstrates-reality-might-actually-be-real

The phrase ‘Form is emptiness; emptiness is form’ is not a necessary foundation of subtle body cultivation IME, and I wouldn’t need to unravel the meaning of this phrase if it doesn’t affect my subtle body cultivation. It seems more likely that we have different concepts of what the subtle body is and how it is cultivated. I don’t need to understand this phrase to feel an emotion, or do a specific posture, or have a working understanding of dantians and chakras and Nadi’s, and these are the basis of subtle body work for me.

The object exists in all its undiminished glory whether it is perceived or not. FWIW the subtle body too exists in all its potential glory whether it is perceived or not. The object doesn’t require someone to perceive it to exist. Once perceived the perceiver can affect the object according to quantum physics, but fundamentally the object exists whether perceived or not. The only difference is whether the object is acted upon or not, not whether it exists or not.

Don’t you have an existence beyond my perception of you? Planets exist whether I know of them or not. My perception is limited, but it still gives me some small clue about what exists in the world and the universe/s.

Different objects might be perceived differently depending on the senses of the perceiver, but objects have their intrinsic nature, even if not perfectly perceived. Lymph is not mind, it is lymph, and we comprehend part of its nature. The body is beyond amazing, and we comprehend part of it, but it exists beyond mind, and beyond perception. If no one was here to perceive a body, there would still be the object, it doesn’t disappear just because no mind perceives it. When mind turns inwards, there are also a myriad of possibilities that mind perceives. My mind perceives something different to your mind. You perceive the ‘natural state’, I perceive a subtle body that wants to develop according to a blueprint that I am not privy to except in bits along the way. Mind is limited, granted, but it doesn’t mean that what it perceives doesn’t exist, what exists is always more complicated than perception, but it’s existence doesn’t change, only the perceptions of it change. If you have found that your mind can disengage from suffering that is a good thing in the short term if you were initially suffering physically or mentally, but beyond the issue of suffering there are other developments within that are not intertwined with suffering or not suffering, there is another agenda that is barely heard, that is more important than not suffering.

As to what the ‘Self’ is capable of, maybe it’s what you say here, maybe it’s not, experience of the Self is the only way to be sure to me.

The poem supports your view, it isn’t a truth to prove your view. I could quote any text to support just about any view, I could ‘prove’ in this way that your best course of action is to kill an infidel to obtain paradise. Clearly not true according to me and probably you. At most texts and poems either reflect or guide your view.

Depersonalisation vs transcending the personality. My take would be if the mind leaves the body because the feelings are overwhelming this is depersonalisation. If the ‘spiritual’ glimpse happened during trauma, then perhaps the stage is set for fascination with depersonalisation and that state’s ability to avoid pain. To transcend the personality I propose that consciousness needs to travel deeper and deeper within the body to the very centre, through emotions and thoughts, not away from them, but deeper within, to a place where emotions and thoughts inform the Self, but the Self is not limited by these earthly feedback systems. The subtle body inhabits the inner space, not depersonalised space. Ultimately I am not everyone, I am only the deepest essence of myself, a subtle body, which can be developed beyond my physical body, and which when developed is free to travel through space at will, but I am not that space, nor what inhabits that space. While I am alive my home is in my physical body space.

The mother who loses her child in a drive by shooting and remains serene is so weird I would wonder what’s wrong with her. What about accepting the feelings of massive grief, daily, for weeks, and somewhat reducing the long term impact of the loss at best.

Just to be clear, my quote is just a ‘nondual’ quote, not something I personally recommend.

Sometimes it is the mind that causes the malady, sometimes it is genetics, sometimes it is deterioration over time. Is it your mind that causes you to age and develop conditions associated with aging, or is it the lymph system not working well, and organs degenerating. If it was all in the mind, the right mind set could choose to live to 100 in perfect health, and why not 200, 400, 1000?

SUFFERING: Does everything, particularly ‘suffering’ happen for a purpose? The short and quick answer is that there is no hidden “purpose” to anything, going by the Advaita scriptures. But people including many pundits do speak of a purpose or talk of ‘suffering’ as a redemption of past sins or say that suffering is due to the effect of the innate tendencies (vasanas) or karma etc. etc. — these are all just ideas to help the “person” who is suffering so that he/she can “cope up” with the problem on hand. “To cope up” means attend to the problem at the physical level (take appropriate medicine etc.) and manage day to day life without blaming others or regretting one’s own life. The “coping mechanisms” help to reduce the mental agitation / worry and help in a calm assessment so that the “person” can find proper steps to alleviate the “suffering.” Therefore, there is no harm if a person thinks in terms of a purpose etc. for the suffering, if it helps him/her to attend to the immediate needs of a problem. The separate “me” is the “doer” for the actions or “owner” (claimant) for what happens. Say, suffering happens and the separate “me” claims that suffering as “mine”. Then I become the owner for the suffering and hence I suffer. If there is no owner, the suffering will be orphaned. Unpossessed by anybody, the ‘suffering’ does not get strength and attenuates by itself. As you know already, Non-duality tells us that a separate “me” is merely an imagination, it does not exist. The Unfindable Inquiry of Scott shows that a “me” cannot be found at all because it does not exist. So the “me” is an imagination. If the “me” is an imagination, the claimant of “suffering” as the “owner of suffering” is also an imagination. As long as a “person” thinks that he/she exists as a separate individual human being and that he is the sufferer, the suffering continues. Once he finds that there is no individual “person” there with a solid human body “claiming” the suffering to be his, who is there as the sufferer i.e. the owner of the suffering? Then nobody would need the “coping mechanisms” of inventing a purpose, or karma etc. https://www.advaita-vision.org/a-question-on-causality-purpose-and-suffering-in-non-duality/ Is there a universal nondual truth in relation to suffering, or do you just go with what makes you feel better, because that’s ok too?

Each to their own, I wish you all the best in finding what is important to you.

That’s the first I’ve ever heard that fajin unlocks nondual realisation. Fajin: To “issue or discharge power explosively or refining the explosive power” “transfer[ing] qi from dantian towards the limb or body part (e.g. shoulder, head, hip) that will perform the technique with explosive force”. There is undeniably a certain sort of subtle body development in developing fajin, but is there anyone else other than your teacher perhaps who links fajin with nondual realisation?